U. of Chicago Law School Blocks Internet Access

Scott Jaschik writes "While some individual professors have banned laptops from classes at various colleges, the University of Chicago law school is going further, cutting off wireless and wired access in its classrooms to confront what officials see as out-of-control Web surfing. The story was first reported in the Above The Law 'legal tabloid' late last month. Students and the university's CIO question the strategy." Things will get interesting when Sprint WiMax service lights up in Chicago later this year.

Where I come from...

[MozeeToby]

If you spend all your class time surfing the web, you should fail.

If your students are able to pass without paying any attention to you, you must not teach very much in your lectures. And if you don't teach anything, well, why should they pay attention?

What the hell???

[TripMaster Monkey]

This isn't high school, it's college . The people there are paying good money to be there (well, at least their parents are...). If a student wants to cheat himself of the maximum benefit of a very costly education bu dicking around on the Web during lectures, that should be his lookout. As long as they're not bothering other students, I don't see how this is an issue.

Cue the knee jerk reactions...

[vtscott]

Please, it's not as if they've banned their law students from accessing the internet completely. They're just not providing them with a convenient way to play flash games and read blogs during class. I graduated from college about a year ago, and as someone who normally sits in the back of the class I can tell you that a large percentage of the class would just browse the internet idly while the professor lectured and sometimes even play games like WoW. This got to be very distracting when trying to concentrate, because one would have to ignore movement on laptop screens and frantic clicking. I would hope law students would be a bit more mature and would simply be browsing the news or chatting with friends, but when they're doing that they're definitely not getting the most out of their lectures.

That said, overall I don't have a problem with students wasting their tuition money (or their parents' tuition money) by browsing the internet in class all day. But this isn't some power grab to squelch independent thinking. These students are free to browse the internet in their dorms, or the library, or the dining halls, etc. It might be poorly thought out, but I think people (or at least you) are freaking out over nothing.

I don't get it.

[PeanutButterBreath]

Why would the school or university care if their students are wasting their own time and money by surfing the web in class?

I graduated before the age of ubiquitous laptops and wi-fi, so this wasn't a problem. Even still we had our distractions and it probably irked certain professors to know that they didn't have the rapt attention of every single person in the room. Generally speaking though, we were left alone as long as our snoring didn't disturb others.

I wonder if these profs take a roll call before every lecture. Does the school have truant officers on staff to keep these law students on the straight-and-narrow?

Instead, just force people to make a decision

[Idaho]

The right solution is, IMO, to simply ban laptops from being open during lectures. It sends the same message as people using laptops during meetings basically: if you can't be arsed to even pay attention (to the lecture, or the meeting), why are you there in the first place. For meetings it may be the case that you are basically "forced" to attend, however this is seldom the case for lectures (at least at my university).

So I fully understand lecturers who urge (or force) people to make a conscious decision *either* to stay in the lecture room and (at the very least pretend to) pay attention, or if you don't feel like paying attention, want to browse the internet, or absolutely *have* to chat with your neighbour about the previous weekend, can you please just go to the lunchroom next door, thank you so much and don't let the door hit you on the way out. Because it's not like anybody is *forcing* you to be there. If you think you'll do fine by reading the lecture sheets and/or the book, you're free to do so (and in many cases that's perfectly possible, too).

If you want to take notes during the lecture (the excuse everyone uses), paper still works just fine, as it has for ages.

Re:About Time!

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, a lawyer does have a number of duties to his client, especially in a court setting. Perhaps a perusal of the rules of professional responsibility would help your understanding of them?

Re:What the hell???

[LurkerXXX]

When lecture time is wasted because a professor has to repeat his question twice for all the students that aren't paying attention, it hurts the quality time of the other part of the class who do want to get their money's worth for the class. It is an issue.

The folks surfing during class aren't just cheating themselves. They are cheating the other people in the class who are trying to learn.

Re:Just let them fail..

[abolitiontheory]

Would you hold class in the center of a crowded mall? The very nature of a college, or classroom, is a controlled environment to further learning. Controlling the student's ability to access the internet is no different than the four walls posted around them to keep them from seeing the rest of the world.

Internet access in the classroom always seemed to me like a boon from the "ignorant IT gods" of hasty wireless implementation by blithering idiots who didn't know how to make it secret and only let professors in the building have access (or smart peoplel like us.). It never made sense that it would continue long past this point, kind of like internet tax freedom or net neutrality. Once people realize its just too good to be true, they're going to stamp down it somewhere.

But no, controlling internet access in a classroom is not hand holding, its simply a common-sense measure to direct attention towards the teacher, like facing all the chairs in the same direction at the beginning of the class.

Re:About Time!

[Uebergeek]

Um... no, you're completely wrong. The lawyer has numerous ethical duties to his client. The most notable of these duties is a duty of zealous representation - the lawyer's personal feelings have to be put aside to represent the client's interests. The lawyer also has a duty as an officer of the court to not make false statements to the court (judge/jury) and to not counsel or assist the client in acting illegally. Maybe if you were paying attention in your mandatory ethics class in law school, rather than dinking about on the internet on your laptop, you would have learned some of this...

Re:Wow. Just... wow.

[wile_e_wonka]

The problem is that U of C is one of the most respected law schools in the nation. The administrators can do whatever they want--the school has, like, a 5% acceptance rate.

Re:Banning LAPTOPS?!

[abolitiontheory]

There is a certain advantage to taking notes on paper. The attention I pay and the way I take notes when I'm using paper is markedly different then when I use a laptop. I'm usually doing it to be lazy (which may just be me), but I'm a kinesthetic (sp?) learner, which means taking notes and paying attention in that manner helps sear in the information in my brain. It also forces you to occlude information, and consolidate, instead of simply typing nearly word for word (which is usually just by brain saying, 'I'll retake this lecture later.') I'm just saying, like most synthetic inventions (margerine, vitamins, artificial suntanning) there are usually always drawbacks compared to the harder, "natural" method. Maybe that's just me though.

Re:What the hell???

[Applekid]

The professor should be running the class: why is he slowing it down because of the people who aren't paying attention? Why would he allow people who sleep in class get access to him during office hours? Why would he have one iota of care beyond the students which are engaged and actually, you know, part of the class?

Aren't we supposed to be adults at that level of education?

I know I've had a few classes in college that didn't teach me anything I didn't already know but had to take them anyway due to prerequisites. Should I have been forced to show up to class beyond the exams and stare at a wall for 90 minutes?

Heh, maybe I just had the dignity to sleep late instead of coming in to class and playing Quake in the lecture hall.

Re:You'd be surprised what these students do

[Applekid]

So, how would your school react to a student doing disruptive things like squirting a watergun at other classmates or breaking a stinkbomb or chatting away on a cell phone? The professor would likely demand they leave at a minimum, probably recommend disciplinary action if it's a regular occurrance up to an including expulsion.

I don't see why they can't treat electronically disruptive individuals the same way they would treat conventionally disruptive individuals.

Re:Where I come from...

[compass46]

Because actual learning isn't just about passing a damn test. It's about intellectual curiosity and absorbing ideas from others which in turn spark new ideas within yourself. Too many people are simply satisfied with being able to memorize someone else's words without ever having formulated their own unique and creative thoughts. These people pass tests but they're boring as hell.

A place for everything

[PhotoGuy]

As much as an internet junkie as I am, I don't think the classroom (in general) is the place for it, any more than talking on a cell phone, or cooking a meal would be appropriate. It's a place where you're supposed to pay attention and take part in a discussion, not check your facebook constantly. If you don't want to go to the lecture, don't; get someone else's notes, read the text, or whatever. But if I'm a prof (and I was, part time, awhile back) I'm not going to waste my time interacting with a class that is doing something else at the time.

And it's not just people doing other things. I did a couple of seminars on Java in its early days, at a progressive local university, that had internet (wired) at every seat. Only a couple of people were using it, but it's awfully hard to get across concepts when people are constantly googling what you say and trying to point out problems or sound smart before you finish getting a point across.

A lot of the time in teaching, you have to start with generalizations to get the general concept across, some of which aren't 100% correct, technically; then you delve into the details clarifying those points. (As a broad example in another field, teaching newtonian physics as a basis for relativistic stuff.) One smartass with Google/Wiki can ruin that process for the whole class.

(On the other hand, those who are genuinely curious about something that is said and want to take a quick detour, I could support; but like most liberties, where there's a tendency towards abuse, you sometimes have reduced those liberties in certain agreed upon circumstances. It's similar to the cell phones on planes arguments. There are those that would use it respectfully, moderately, and quietly; but there would typically be a more noticable inconsiderate contingent that would just drive everyone nuts.)

Re:Instead, just force people to make a decision

[Rogerborg]

If you want to take notes during the lecture (the excuse everyone uses), paper still works just fine, as it has for ages.

So does chiselling hieroglyphs on little stone pyramids, but that's not a good reason to eschew new technology.

The argument against banning laptops/intartubes access is bullshit, because it presupposes that:

1. Every single moment in a lecture contains vital information.
2. Students are incapable of multitasking, or determining what's important and what is filler.
3. That the customer (the student) is wrong.

It fails every rational test. It's about ego, pure and simple. Lecturers are having hissy fits because their customers aren't a captive audience any more, and they want the old days back, when they could pretend that sleeping students were just listening really attentively. They may as well order the tide not to come in.

Who Cares?

[morari]

They've already paid. What they do during lectures is there business. Plenty of people--in general--can pass classes without paying attention. Many people just go for the wittle piece 'o paper saying that they do indeed know the material, despite already being well versed in it.

Re:About Time!

[BytePusher]

I suppose next citizens will want every single state and federal law posted on there so they can try to interpret it themselves!

The parent makes one really good point. I was recently talking with a friend of mine just fresh out of law school. Aside from learning the language and protocol of courtrooms and some law theory a huge portion of a law degree today is learning to use some very expensive law databases. These for profit databases are the _only_ practical means of knowing the law. It seems to me, that of all the things our government could spend money on, making the law and cases knowable to the general public at an accessible price to everyone would be somewhat high on the list.

Re:Instead, just force people to make a decision

[Atlantis-Rising]

Paper works terribly. My writing is not only slow, but it's almost illegible; organizing notes is a nightmare, as is attaching handouts and sending them to other students if necessary, and have you ever tried to run a search on a piece of paper? It doesn't work. All my notes are typed, and I use the internet ceaselessly in class- as an immediate, on-the-spot information resource for discussion and in-depth reference on a specific topic. I would refuse categorically to attend any institution which prohibits me from making use of the two most effective educational tools ever invented, after books.

Re:Where I come from...

[Anonymous Coward]

Intellectual curiosity? What's that?

Nevermind, another Reality TV show is on....

Re:About Time!

[moxley]

I totally agree with the spirit of your jest - and while I think lawyers can be the bane of existence (except when you need one or they're saving your ass), the real issue in my mind is judges and the institutionalized corruption of some (particularly federal) judges and the legal/legislative system in general.

I a not saying that there aren't are good and ethical judges, I am sure the majority of them are just that; but there are many judges who are political instruments, who refuse to inform juries of their rights and taint the process with extremely limited instructions to the jury which attempt to control the verdict. They get their position via a politcal maneuver, and repay the powers involved by doing everything they can to make things turn out those who put them there would like.

I am mainly referring to three types of cases: The first, tax cases where the constitutionality of the tax code and IRS are involved. The second is high profile cases where the government or MIC are taken on, and the third would be high profile cases involving setting a precedent that the powers that be would like set. These types of cases can be shopped to the "correct" judges.

I have even read read transcripts of a tax law case where the judge refused to allow the defendant to admit several supreme court precedents set that would have made his case and who said (and this is a direct quote) "I will not allow the law in my courtroom."

It just seems to me (especially in the past 8 years) that the law is selectively applied and even more selectively enforced. When we have a president that attaches signing statements that invalidate parts of laws or compeltely changes their meaning and spirit and we have a judicial system not upholding it's responsibility to the people in many ways, what do we have?

Certainly we no longer have "rule of law." I would say that what we have now in regards to these things are a large part of what enables the current predicament the people of this country are in as we head deeper into fascism.

Re:Cue the knee jerk reactions...

[Nimey]

Maybe you missed where parent said your movements are distracting to others, asshole.

Re:Cue the knee jerk reactions...

[Fallingcow]

No kidding. About 75% of professors seem to think that it's acceptable to waste the students' time by conveying exactly the same information (and NOTHING more) that they could have digested with 10 minutes of reading via a 50 minute lecture.That's not education--that's a complete waste of 40 minutes.

At the very least the lecture should be compelling enough to hold one's attention, even if the actual information in it would be more efficiently conveyed in text form; that way, there's at least a chance of a boost in retention from the lecture format. Low-content, poorly-presented lectures seem to be the norm, however. Too bad.

Re:Instead, just force people to make a decision

[kyjl]

"and I use the internet ceaselessly in class- as an immediate, on-the-spot information resource for discussion and in-depth reference on a specific topic."

You sir are a rarity.

Maybe because I'm just a lowly 3rd-year undergrad but the internet is just about NEVER used as an "immediate, on-the-spot information resource for discussion and in-depth reference on a specific topic" in class. 99% of the time it's kids playing flash games and they're usually in the back right next to each other. I don't mind that but it gets irritating when he's sitting in the middle or in the front - it's very distracting to see moving pictures right smack in your line of sight of either the board or the professor.

Now there is the rare occasion where you see the kid or two that's Googling what's going on in class or looking up in Wiki, but I haven't seen an occasion of that in a long-ass time.

Re:Instead, just force people to make a decision

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's completely reasonable to expect someone sitting at the back of the class to not be distracted by having 10 people frantically pounding their keyboards to frag someone, 10 laptop screens showing Quake views, and 10 other students watching porn.

You fail every rational test.

Re:Cue the knee jerk reactions...

[Moridineas]

No kidding. About 75% of professors seem to think that it's acceptable to waste the students' time by conveying exactly the same information (and NOTHING more) that they could have digested with 10 minutes of reading via a 50 minute lecture.That's not education--that's a complete waste of 40 minutes.

Where did you go to school that this is true? At the college level I don't think I had *1* professor that did what you say they all do. Maybe Intro to Econ which had 300 people, but even that class had smaller breakout groups of 10-15 that had discussions, etc.

Re:Cue the knee jerk reactions...

[dreamchaser]

Fewer and fewer people seem to care about how their actions affect other people around them these days. It's not surprising. We live in a 'ME ME ME' society nowadays.

Re:Banning LAPTOPS?!

[Hatta]

Why take notes? The material is in the text. You get a copy of the lecture slides from the instructor.

I always found that taking notes was a distraction, and they were never useful to me anyway. Just paying attention and thinking about the lecture was far more useful.

Re:Cue the knee jerk reactions...

[JonSimons]

Mod parent up!

Those that sit and surf the net while in class are complete assholes. Don't bother coming to class if you're not going to productively participate in lecture or if you're just going to distract others that can see your screen.

Not to mention that it's also just blatantly, obliviously, and childishly rude to the lecturer.

The same things go for talking on your cell phone in confined spaces.

Re:Cue the knee jerk reactions...

[ZorinLynx]

The problem is professors who REQUIRE class attendance even if you fully understand the material.

I've had to take classes on subjects I was already fluent in, such as various programming courses, and in some cases the professors require attendance or they deduct points.

If I'm forced to be there even though I don't need to be, I'm going to sit in the back and either surf the web or do homework on my laptop. Why should my time go to waste?

Re:Cue the knee jerk reactions...

[nobodyman]

I'll stop browsing the web and playing Quake in class when professors start giving a shit and actually forming a coherent lecture

If this is the case, why are you even attending class in the first place? What not just show up for test days and be done with it? It's not like they're taking attendance. Seems like it would be easier to just stay in your dorm and play quake there.

Re:Where I come from...

[porcupine8]

If someone can get good grades on your tests and projects by just memorizing, then you're writing bad tests/assignments.

Re:About Time!

[xPsi]

Since when is school about "doing what you love"? School is a means to an end, a stepping stone to teach you how to research what you really need to know, nothing more. It's to teach you how to think, and that's especially true for law school.

Not true. It sounds trite, but you'd better be doing what you love -- or at least appreciate each moment to the best of your ability -- or you are wasting your life. School is part of the whole life path. Life doesn't somehow start after school. This absurdly pseudo-practical "means to an end" myth some students have is _absolute nonsense_. If that is how you are treating school, my advice is you need to recalibrate. The only endpoint in life is death.

Another Prof. Perspective

[one2meny]

As a professor I just don't see the issue. It's stupidly egoistic to think that what I have to say is soooooo important that if every student doesn't listen to me then they're missing out. If the student can surf all class whilst still doing well in the class, then good for them. More likely than not though, the more general it is becoming for students to do this, the more likely the average student will become below-average. But this isn't my problem. If student's want to do poorly by not paying attention, that's their issue, not mine. The only time this is an issue is when the student is being disruptive to students who are trying to pay attention. Short of that, let them waste their time and money in showing up.